I, for one, welcome our new joke-killing overlords.
It's on a day like this that if someone were to set us up the bomb, I doubt any of the editors would notice. They would instead continue to report on how V14gr.a spam might too make you blind, that technical typesetters have a tendency towards LaTeX fetishes, and that some clever sod at U.S. Navy research has bodged together a covert surveillance device by attaching a camera to an iPod, and called it an iEye.
I'm somewhat mystified on this one. Because the core idea of having something unicine running on top of NT is, from what I've heard, not impossible. It supposed to be at least possible to implement Linux system calls over the NT HAL (I don't know how much of the Executive would be left over --- see this diagram of NT's structure).
That said, I'd never resent anyone else using txt/AOL in a conversation with me because I know that, above all else, there's no malicious intent. They're probably just following what they've seen of others.
But I'd squeeze myself down the Internet and kick an IM buddy's arse if he or she ever deigned to use l33t in my presence.
And hell, it's more difficult to write like that than it is to write properly. Takes more time, too.
And then there are the perfectionists like me who find txt and AOLspeak physically uncomfortable. I really can't understand how people can let themselves communicate that way.
My point is that many Windows users are "first time buyers" and people who just want a computer to do stuff on. I only understood the necessity of limited accounts having come from a unicine background; many do not have that benefit.
Microsoft does all sorts to make setting up an XP system "easy" and "user friendly", but it doesn't make the user stop, sit down and understand one of the most basic tenets of computer security.
I think (and my opinion is absolutely not authoritative) that the burden of backward compatibility has been NT's biggest bain. Why does Microsoft insist on it for the sake of a few enterprise clients? (This statement may underestimate the size of that market.) No-one should be running 16-bit code these days (and never was there a better invented word than "thunk"). Think of all the many programs that can't integrate properly with NT's multi-user environment: I reckon there wouldn't be so damn many of them had Microsoft taken a gamble and pushed NT derivatives in the home/small business market many years ago.
That's true. My experience of trying to multitask in XP is... it sucks. It's like driving a four-speed manual with a discrete clutch. I even tried changing the scheduling policy to "better for background services" (or whatever it is), but the system still trudges along when I try encoding Vorbis, for instance.
The lesson to be learned here is not to abuse an Administrator account. Unfortunately, Windows setup does not actively encourage good security practice.
By 2015, Microsoft will be open source, and most likely, Linux will be its kernel.
I think this is unlikely. The underlying NT is quite well-designed (originally by David Cutler of VMS, amongst others, as I believe), and a reasonably flexible system upon which to develop applications. Microsoft's not going to give it up any time soon. It's what's run on top that's wrong with Windows.
That's odd. In the official Matthews and Lyneham (my spelling might be wrong here) book of the Father Ted scripts, it starts by describing the scene, and then states that "the --- denote censorous bleeps". This lead me to believing that the bleeps were deliberate and meant to be part of the comedy.
In fact, it would seem buggering around with swear-words is rather frequent in Father Ted: "Fupp off, you fuppin' baxterd!"
An extract from yet another script that didn't make Ballykissangel:
Ted. Just play the f---ing note. Dougal. The first one? Ted. No! Not the f---ing first one! The f---ing first one's already f---ing down! Just play the f---ing note you were f---ing playing earlier! I've been playing the f---ing first one! We have the f---ing first one! Dougal. So I'll just... Ted. Just play the f---ing note you were f---ing playing there! The f---ing thing you were just f---ing doing! Play the f---ing note!
Slashdot Mirror
That story is exactly four minutes and thirty-three seconds long!
I, for one, welcome our new joke-killing overlords.
It's on a day like this that if someone were to set us up the bomb, I doubt any of the editors would notice. They would instead continue to report on how V14gr.a spam might too make you blind, that technical typesetters have a tendency towards LaTeX fetishes, and that some clever sod at U.S. Navy research has bodged together a covert surveillance device by attaching a camera to an iPod, and called it an iEye.
How much different is the OS/2 kernel from NT, given the shared development history, etc.?
I'm somewhat mystified on this one. Because the core idea of having something unicine running on top of NT is, from what I've heard, not impossible. It supposed to be at least possible to implement Linux system calls over the NT HAL (I don't know how much of the Executive would be left over --- see this diagram of NT's structure).
Add to this that they've now linked Viagra to blindness...
Well, you don't get more maximum than her!
Now can we stop with the 01-04's? It's way past mid-day where I am.
Yeah, I waited 20 seconds, too.
I cannot help but think that there is a great Michael Jackson joke somewhere in this auton business.
I read somewhere that someone put a laptop in a fridge to get it through a big compile job; does that count?
Not the kind of stuff on a restore CD, no. But, just to be pedantic, something that can switch off fans or tweak CPU voltages could make pain.
Eww!
I think this was meant to say, "I, for one, welcome our French Borg library overlords."
The electricity company.
That said, I'd never resent anyone else using txt/AOL in a conversation with me because I know that, above all else, there's no malicious intent. They're probably just following what they've seen of others.
But I'd squeeze myself down the Internet and kick an IM buddy's arse if he or she ever deigned to use l33t in my presence.
And then there are the perfectionists like me who find txt and AOLspeak physically uncomfortable. I really can't understand how people can let themselves communicate that way.
lets face it wv all been here @ sm point
So what's the resolution to this? (And no, ditching XP doesn't count.)
My point is that many Windows users are "first time buyers" and people who just want a computer to do stuff on. I only understood the necessity of limited accounts having come from a unicine background; many do not have that benefit.
Microsoft does all sorts to make setting up an XP system "easy" and "user friendly", but it doesn't make the user stop, sit down and understand one of the most basic tenets of computer security.
I think (and my opinion is absolutely not authoritative) that the burden of backward compatibility has been NT's biggest bain. Why does Microsoft insist on it for the sake of a few enterprise clients? (This statement may underestimate the size of that market.) No-one should be running 16-bit code these days (and never was there a better invented word than "thunk"). Think of all the many programs that can't integrate properly with NT's multi-user environment: I reckon there wouldn't be so damn many of them had Microsoft taken a gamble and pushed NT derivatives in the home/small business market many years ago.
That's true. My experience of trying to multitask in XP is... it sucks. It's like driving a four-speed manual with a discrete clutch. I even tried changing the scheduling policy to "better for background services" (or whatever it is), but the system still trudges along when I try encoding Vorbis, for instance.
The lesson to be learned here is not to abuse an Administrator account. Unfortunately, Windows setup does not actively encourage good security practice.
I think this is unlikely. The underlying NT is quite well-designed (originally by David Cutler of VMS, amongst others, as I believe), and a reasonably flexible system upon which to develop applications. Microsoft's not going to give it up any time soon. It's what's run on top that's wrong with Windows.
That's odd. In the official Matthews and Lyneham (my spelling might be wrong here) book of the Father Ted scripts, it starts by describing the scene, and then states that "the --- denote censorous bleeps". This lead me to believing that the bleeps were deliberate and meant to be part of the comedy.
In fact, it would seem buggering around with swear-words is rather frequent in Father Ted: "Fupp off, you fuppin' baxterd!"
An extract from yet another script that didn't make Ballykissangel:
I'd be more inclined, in this instance, to ask them what the feck they're doing.